Skip to main content
3:00 pm
infrastructure and sustainable and growth needs". text under that could say the "eastern portion is rich with existing planned infrastructure including the sfmta project and rail service and muni services planned for enhancement. this area is adjacent to jobs and housing and areas and mission bay. and the city must look at how it can meet the objectives and project growth and transit oriented locations and meeting needs and a further policy could read "continue to explore land use controls east of sixth street when included in the corridor" that is potential language you could pursue or not pursue, but we prepared it at your question. going back to
3:01 pm
the slides. moving beyond that which is sort of general policy direction to continue evaluating this would be more sort of direct affirmative changes to the plan and such things that were discussed would include adding code provisions to the planning code that would delay portions of the western soma plan or create sunset provisions to do the opposite, or in the advanced option carve out some or all of the overlap area from the plan and zoning so those are the options that are before you. again what is in your materials is what is option number one which is just to adopt the plan and zoning and maps as proposed. i am happy to talk about those further but let me turn it back over to cory to finish up the presentation.
3:02 pm
>> okay. moving on to the next issue which is something we discussed at length last week, so we want to get into more detail today which is the issue of flexibility and land uses and historic buildings. you asked us to look on that more specifically so we wanted to provide you more information and options. the options are not xuftive. we tried to keep them manageable and open to additional ideas and discussion but these are some of the logical options we felt were good to put forward, but first to set the stage this is existing conditions map of western soma in terms of historic structures and what is designated, so you see the western soma boundary in the black. the blue boundary is the extended soma conservation district from article 11, and so
3:03 pm
everything in blue is an article 10 designated local landmark building. the one little property in green within the extended conservation district that is article 11 category one through four building and everything in yellow is formally list the on the state or national register. to be clear these are the properties that are listed or designated. obviously there are many properties within the planned area that potentially could be designated or listed if they went forward with that process but that's basically what we have existing in the planned area today. this map -- these are going to build off each other so the same properties in the existing map are here, but this shows all of the buildings within the planned area that
3:04 pm
are individually eligible for the state or national register, and that adds more properties to the potential pool to take advantage of these land use controls, but it's important to know that they're properties individually eligible. they're not contributors to a particular district. on their own merit they're eligible for the state or national register. this last map is basically all the properties that are eligible for the state or national register including all of the previous properties shown currently designated or listed and this is kind of the eastern neighborhood's option per se. under eastern neighborhoods right now if you're eligible for listing on the state or national register you can take advantage of the flexible land uses. especially if you look north of
3:05 pm
harrison street on this map there are more buildings than not by a good many that are eligible because they are a contributor to a potential district, and that was why there was i policy call to not use the same . this is being introduced to be permitted in some ways on folsom street and ninth and tenth street but this would open up the area north of harrison and the primary area for development in western soma for substantial office development, so that gives you a little background and information, but we wanted to again provide a few options so the first option is what we have currently proposed which is essentially article 10 landmarks, designated buildings, and it would require that they
3:06 pm
be designated. again there are few who are currently designated but there are more that could be if they went through the process and currently under the code the land use flexibility you get is to have office or in the rad additional retail. the second option which was raised before as well is what is currently employed in soma, which is article 10 landmarks, article 11 category one through four buildings which there is only one right now in western soma that false under that category but again there could be others that could be eligible for that, and contributory buildings and designated article 10 districts but currently there are none in western soma, so the only real difference right now between option one and two is the inclusion of the article 11
3:07 pm
category one through four buildings, but the second difference is the kind of land use flexibility to grant. instead of saying these buildings can have office and extra retail they refer to another district. they basically say you can have any use permitted in sso which the existing office district in soma except for night time entertainment could be permitted in these buildings and more flexibility in the types of uses and most people use it for office buildings. option three, and this gets to the second map we looked at with salmon colored properties which is including the article 10 landmarks, including article 11 category one through four, but also including buildings that are listed on the state or national register. again the existing conditions map show we don't
3:08 pm
have many properties within western soma which are designate d or listed although we know there could be and this is one way to encourage it. it's kind of a give and take so option three you basically say you have to be designated article 10, article 11 category one through four or listed on the register. a slight variant of that would be the same thing but only requiring that the properties be individually eligible for the state or national register so it wouldn't require them to be listed on the state or national register. and the fifth option we kind of discussed which is the eastern neighborhoods option which would allow all eligible state and national listings to be included in the flexible land use controls. so i touched on
3:09 pm
this a little bit but to be more specific the other considerations we have to keep in mind separate from what level of designation to set the threshold at is what kind of flexibility to give them, and where to permit that flexibility, so right now the current proposal again, which is just the article 10. we only propose that basically in the districts north of harrison street and not south of harrison street in the sally district or the wmo and you can basically do anything there except residential including office and night time entertainment. and we don't do it in the sally because it's essentially a pdr district and not in the code but for all intensive purposes it is and just like in eastern neighborhoods this doesn't
3:10 pm
apply to pdr districts and in the same vain we don't want to apply that that way and whether we tie that to a specific range of uses by referencing another district perhaps or a very limit set of uses like office and retail, so this is review of the flexibility and historic buildings issue. we can obviously have more discussion on that. moving on to the next issue though which is something that has not yet been discussed and you actually have an e rata page in your packet that includes a couple of proposed changes to the -- one to the plang code and one to the zoning map amendments, and the
3:11 pm
background of this is in november prop c passed and created the housing trust fund and amended the city charter and the way it was amended no new increases in inclusionary or affordable requirements can be permitted under new rezonings unless you meet one of several exceptions. the two exceptions that would potentially apply here are that you're creating housing capacity of at least an additional 20% gross as measured by various things including height on the properties where you're increasing the affordability requirement or that the overall plan significantly increases the potential for housing capacity, so as proposed in the planning code amendment under this section we have these major developments that we call out, and these are properties that
3:12 pm
are on large lots that zoned for height and base height and top height and to get the extra height they require conditional use authorization and go through a process and meet specific criteria and subject to a higher level of affordability but lower level of impact fee so there is a trade off there. it's not necessarily one to one and that is in the code and technicality incoming the affordability requirements for those projects so after discussions with the city attorney and the changes i will detail in a second the western soma code we amended to meet the 20% increase in residential exception so what this does is essentially there were three properties that were proposed for split height and large and subject to this
3:13 pm
requirement but all three of the properties were significantly developed so the likelihood they would be demolished and built again is unlikely and not getting a height bump to account for the 20% and changing to that and instead of split height be a standard height lot and not subject to those controls and affordability and we're also planning because in this folsom district and rcd along ninth and 10 street they allow residential but large lots they don't want residential on the ground floor because they could take up large changes of space that is designed for businesses and it
3:14 pm
might not be the nicest thing there, but with that provision in place the height bump those areas were receiving would not be enough to meet the 20% threshold so that was proposed with discussion with the community and with staff to remove that criteria or reinstruction for large lots here. finalize that issue and move to the next. two minor changes but important. lastly i wanted to bring up again -- we gave these to you on november 15 at the informational hearing but i wanted to point them out again and the historic preservation commission resolution they passed with specific recommendations to the board of supervisors, but it's also there for your review and to use as you will. there are multiple
3:15 pm
recommendations. i didn't want to list them all out. some are very small, some are larger but to the topics that we are covering today and shall provide land and properties not eligible for landmark status but retain character and integrity and similar to the discussion we had here about that and in historic buildings and i wanted to point that out to you and in the packet so you have the information and all the specific recommendations that they provided. another issue that -- a bit of last minute we discovered in the rad district, the residentialan clarify district we proposed. >> >> to have child care not
3:16 pm
permitted and state law says it is permitted and there is nuisances to regulate the larger ones but for now we recommend part of the motion and resolution to adopt the planning code changes that we permit child care as a right in the rad. this is one last small change. and i wanted to give a quick summary again because there are a lot of pieces here and some may need to be amended depending on the action you want to take and the 11 etstreet corridor and amend the resolution if you want to change the zoning. the pipeline issue and amend the resolution to include that provision. the central corridor and amend that plan if you want to include that in the resolution or the plan? a. the [inaudible] historic
3:17 pm
buildings and amend the planning code and resolution if you wanted to create a separate threshold or system for providing that flexibility and again any of the recommendations that you need to amend the planning code or the general plan resolution. lastly i know that a lot of the public comment received by staff was also sent directly to the planning commission so we didn't provide it hear you here today. the majority of the comment we received has been in the last week and they were either letters of support or letters of concern about flex flexibility in the historic issue and i think those went to the planning commission as well so that concludes my presentation with these outstanding issues and i am available as well as with other staff for questions you may have. >> thank you. opening it up to public comment and let me read
3:18 pm
off some names. (calling speakers) if the speakers will line up on that side of the room it's easier. thank you. cards are available on this other side here: i've got more. i called seven out of 15. >> thank you. >> if your name has been called please come up to speak. >> if you're ready. >> hello. i am ms. bartainian. i am here speaking to you as a small business owner in the city
3:19 pm
of san francisco, and investor in small and medium size properties, a resident of the city of san francisco and a concerned community member of the western soma district. my concern is that as it relates to historic controls. my concern is if you're tightening controls you're limiting growth and supporting a non growth policy for the region. what is great about western soma over the last year or two the city has been behind reinvigorating this neighborhood. companies have been relocating. residents have been relocating and calling the western soma home. services have been coming in and what not. as soon as you limit and restrict the use controls for that region you're going to encourage in my opinion recourage the crime, use of
3:20 pm
alcohol, drugs and blight and that is exact same thing we're trying to avoid, to protect the city from. somebody earlier today had mungz mentioned jane jacobs and a quote and i thought it was true and the city having safe streets, having safe neighborhoods and sidewalks is a reflection of the city and limiting the use controls in this area you're not encouraging companies, you're not encouraging groups like that, people like me and my company to invest in this area and my concern is the blight that is going to return to this community. i'm considering -- we are considering relocating our offices from downtown san francisco to .
3:21 pm
ninth street corridor and our concern is whether relaxed controls and investors and whoever it maybe fill the streets and the buildings and they will have a safe and vibrant atmosphere as it does currently. thank you very much. >> good afternoon president fong and commission. i am john harny and own sell and lease buildings in the area. i felt better but it came as a surprise to you. yesterday i sent you each a letter outlining my concerns. in a nutshell restrictions will
3:22 pm
hindzer viablity and historic resources. two, western soma shouldn't have different rules than eastern neighborhoods for fairness and consistency reasons. three, the department staff without use restrictions the sheer number of historic buildings will run the office space in western soma. it's the department itself that did that and 40% of the buildings in soma survey. the department created the stumbling block they're trying to overcome at this hearing. my experience tells me many of the historic buildings can accommodate only a few thousand square feet. there is no threat of office gold rush in the historic western soma structures. number five, last year spur wrote a letter asking for environmental review to better analyze the impactings of
3:23 pm
western soma survey and specifically referenced surveys of western soma. similarly curtailing use options for these buildings will certainly cause negative impacts. finally the department is proposing to contain flexible uses, vitality and of the buildings close to the subway project under construction. i am not a planner but this seems counter intuitive. i ask that the commission treat the resources in western soma as other areas and let the new zoning do its job. thank you for your time. >> good afternoon commissioners, president fong
3:24 pm
>> i feel i'm one of the few motivated and interested stakeholders that is going to come before you and tell you my opinion. i was a little surprised to hear that there was a western soma community plan meeting and only one meeting that addressed these historic
3:25 pm
controls-- there was just one meeting. i found out this past week that the one meeting that the community had with regards to a three year survey for historic resources that he reviewed over 1400 properties in the soma and western soma area. this is hard for me to understand. i also
3:26 pm
know that the different and historic use rules for western soma was never discussed at this one meeting regarding the survey. a 10 year process and only one meeting for a thing as significant as labeling a resource historic? >> if you create special rules for western soma they will have buildings across the street from each other and same style and significance that are subject to the same use control restrictions. and there is two buildings and totally different controls. we move businesses everyday and they need answers and if there isn't a cohesive rule it's difficult for businesses to understand.
3:27 pm
thank you. >> thank you. and i will call a couple more names. (calling speakers). >> hi. i am terry wilson president fong and commissioners. i represent an owner on the ninth street corridor, 149 ninth street and a resident of san francisco. i have been attending the task force meeting for the last two years. i submitted a letter yesterday addressing my concerns. there were other points i wanted to bring up today. i have been a property manager for this location for the last two years and every tenant i would show them about the building but they would ask about the neighborhood. if their employees would be safe in the neighborhood, if there were places to eat and meet outside
3:28 pm
the office, and at that time i had a hard time saying it was, but over the last two years as more tenants have moved into the space as well as everyone is hearing about the corridor from twitter and in this area tenants are feeling comfortable moving in and you can see the vacant buildings are being filled and more welcoming for all businesses to come. we are excited about what can happen with this change. however, if this is restricted use on historical buildings i'm afraid that the growth will stop and it will backtrack to where it was a couple years ago, and it won't believe able to attract any new businesses. that's about all i had. >> thank you. >> good afternoon president fong and commissioners. i am steve
3:29 pm
cooklynn and a development consultant and representing a client who has property on townson street in the mou western soma mixed use district. we are generally in favor of the plan with respect to the wmo with the ability to create new office space along townson street and as we understand it the intent of the wmo zone and additional heights that will provide an opportunity to build larger floor office space for what is really in demand in san francisco at this time and what we see as being in demand for the fee seeable future. however, there is one provision in the plan that limits that to accomplish that goal and that is the

December 6, 2012 3:00pm-3:30pm PST

TOPIC FREQUENCY Soma 4, Fong 4, San Francisco 4, Harrison 4, Townson 2, Rad 1, John Harny 1, Jane Jacobs 1, Steve Cooklynn 1, Terry Wilson 1, Ms. Bartainian 1
Network SFGTV2
Duration 00:30:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 89 (615 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 544
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color